I read with interest an article at LRC by Peter S. Rieth entitled Oh, Me! Me! Shoot Me! A Summary of Contemporary Polish Foreign Policy

I agree with Mr. Rieth’s key point, but wholeheartedly disagree with the method he uses to get there.

In the article he states:

Of course, when speaking of something as abstract as “national psychology” or “the character of a nation,” it must be remembered that we are speaking in generalities verging on stereotypes; that there is no such thing in fact as a “national psychology,” because a “nation” is a mere historical construct; like “ethnicity” itself. Nevertheless, it is often useful to engage the archetype of a “national psychology” to explain certain tendencies in popular thought and action; that is to say —“ in politics. What, then, is it, about Polish national psychology…

Politics is all about painting your enemy, whether a person or philosophy, in the worst possible light. This article simply bathes in the top propagandist models aimed at supporting Mr. Rieth’s arguments. After exposing a great basis for his argument Mr. Rieth seems to loose focus and makes a broad appeal to the Natavist leftovers still so much a part of the American culture. It is the appeal to the “all Poles, dumb Pollacks, they got it with their mother’s milk” way of thinking. The article paints Poles as a corporate unity – all thinking, acting, and believing in the same way. Of course that argument appeals to his target audience especially when it is couched in Mr. Rieth’s brief allusion to ‘well I don’t mean everybody’ and ‘hey I’m a Pole too so I know what I’m talking about.’

His disavowal of stereotyping in the excerpt above doesn’t cut it. Mr. Rieth relies far too heavily on the idea of national consciousness, nationalism, national mythology, with a quick cross-reference to National Socialism throughout his article. He lost his way in writing this article when he failed to grasp the key point he made in saying: “…there is no such thing as a homogeneous understanding of human history.”

I have experienced the broad spectrum of Poland. It is old and new Polonia, it is cities and villages, conservative, moderate, and liberal. It is far from singular in its aspirations and thoughts. Its people are diverse and represent the best and worst in humanity, and everything in-between. Even for all its touted Roman Catholic conservatism its pew dwellers perceive even those matters differently.

What we can understand, and what would have made a better argument, is that governments make good and bad choices and that there are wise and poor leaders. We see flag waving, baby kissing leaders who fail to set a vision for the future as well as those with their sights on the future (take a listen to Lech Wałęsa when he speaks on the interconnectedness of societies, or Jerzy Surdykowski when he speaks on European history – the long view). We see leaders who sell the well being of their country on the cheap as well as those that stand on core principals. We see leaders who take the lessons of history into account in building policy and those whose history is nothing more than chauvinistic fantasy. Each country has its own mixture of these and heaven knows the U.S. has been plagued of late.

Mr. Rieth may want to attempt this exercise and develop an article on the national consciousness of the United States. What leads us to making such bad choices in leaders? Are we an amalgam of “keeping up with the Jones'” and to heck with everything important? It cannot be done, or at least not without too broad of a brush stroke. Those too broad brush strokes destroy the soundness of many an argument.

For my part I would encourage Mr. Rieth to rely on patience in building out his articles. He should avoid painting peoples in such a homogeneous fashion. In taking that route he is not serving intellectual curiosity, good journalism, or a sound call to change. He is just hurting his point: Poland sells itself on the cheap to the United States for the air of safety, one which doesn’t exist (see the Young Fogey’s citation of this article) and in doing so lessens its soundness and security.

The street, and the people of Poland get it, or at least a percentage of the population does. The same street moved away from the destructive tendencies of the Kaczynski twins. You cannot fool the population, in Poland, the U.S., or elsewhere forever, because enough of them see through the disguise. Sound arguments help in achieving better ends, in achieving political change. Please reconstruct your argument.